Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am happy to come back to the committee at a future juncture to talk about the review more generally, as I think that that would be helpful. I am certainly keen to give that undertaking today. As I said in a previous answer, the planning and scoping work for the first stage of the review is already under way and I will provide a further update to the committee and the Parliament in due course.

We are considering the financial projections that the Scottish Fiscal Commission recently published. As I mentioned earlier, our commitment to social security as a human right, and our commitment to the benefits that we are delivering, will mean that we will be considering funding and spending forecasts more generally in terms of targeting public spending to where it delivers throughout the forthcoming resource spending review as we continue to deliver our plans. It creates benefit and of course our commitment to social security delivery is a key part of that.

As I stated in an earlier answer, our commitment to delivering to the people who are entitled to benefits is absolutely clear, and the finances will be made available to ensure that we meet that commitment to people. That is absolutely clear.

I also add—and I say this as a statement of fact and regret—that the Scottish Government has to spend a significant amount of resource directly mitigating the impact of UK Government policies, particularly through discretionary housing payments and the Scottish welfare fund. That totalled £114 million in the financial year 2021-22. I say that as a reflective point. It would be much better if we could spend that resource elsewhere, rather than having to mitigate the bad policy decisions of the UK Government.

The need to ensure that we do not create a two-tier system and that the case transfer is secure is one of the main reasons for its complexity.

Pam Duncan-Glancy makes an important point about the transfer from DLA to ADP. I know that the committee has received evidence on that as part of its consideration. It is not part of the regulations that we are discussing today, but I assure the committee that I will update it on that process shortly, ahead of producing separate draft regulations to make provision for the transfer of those cases.

Today, we are covering our plans for the adult disability payment, including the detail of our processes for transferring the PIP awards of approximately 300,000 people safely and securely to ADP and our commitment to making sure that they are paid the right amount at the right time. We know that the transfer from DLA to ADP is a really important process, too. As I said, we will produce regulations on that shortly and I will update the committee on it as soon as possible.

Marie McNair is raising the important point about why the eligibility criteria that we are proposing need to be largely the same as those for PIP. The committee will be aware that that is fundamentally about three important considerations. The first is safe and secure transfer; the second is making sure that we do not create a two-tier system where people on PIP who are still to transfer into Social Security Scotland would be subject to different conditions from those who are applying for ADP; and the third is the fundamentally important question of passporting and the need for the DWP to consider ADP on a like-for-like basis with PIP for passporting benefits. It is important to point out that we have made some changes in the eligibility criteria that relate to the better experience that we want people to have, but throughout our engagement with the DWP it has been important for them that there were not significant changes to the eligibility criteria for ADP, in order for it to be considered on a like-for-like basis for passporting.

Marie McNair mentioned the 20m rule and I know that the committee has received a lot of evidence on that. Scottish Government ministers have also had a lot of engagement on the issue, with stakeholders and others. It is important that people understand that if the DWP were to change its eligibility rules that could, of course, have an impact. We would be able to be more assured that the DWP would consider ADP with different eligibility rules, if they were concurrent with any changes that the DWP were making, for passporting purposes. Also, the considerations of any added payment out, within the fiscal framework, would be built into the resources received by the Scottish Government, so that there were better resources for the payment of social security. We are already committing a significant amount of additional resource to pay out over and above what we receive through the fiscal framework for social security benefits, because we want to do more and assist people more in our communities.

Of course, we have had no indication from the DWP that it intends to change the 20m rule and that is certainly not a suggestion in its green paper.

Marie McNair is absolutely right to highlight those important differences. Not so long ago, I was a member of the Social Security Committee during the progress of the bill that became the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018. I remember the powerful evidence that was provided by organisations that support people at a time of terminal illness and their families. It is a real tribute to the Parliament and to the stakeholders we work with that we have got to the point of delivering such support for those with a terminal illness. It is important that there is adequate support and that people get that support quickly. That is exactly why we have taken the position that we will rely on the evidence of clinicians to make our decisions about granting support to those with a terminal illness. It a matter of considering not time periods, but people’s situation and medical position. That will enable people to get support as quickly as possible.

I will try to come back on as many of those questions as possible. Forgive me if you have to come back on some of them, given their extent.

As I said, we need to consider the 20m rule within the review process; we need to get the feedback on how the adult disability payment performs once it is launched; and we need to undertake the independent review so that the Government can receive feedback on the eligibility criteria. As I set out in a previous answer, we are undertaking consideration of the mobility criteria in 2022.

On the points that have been raised with the committee about those with fluctuating conditions and mental ill health, I appreciate the evidence that the committee received on 16 December. I considered it with interest and intent in a proper manner, and I am grateful for it.

I go back to some of the fundamental points about what our new system will deliver. We have removed all functional examinations from the process. As members will know, the DWP requires examinations, such as testing flexibility and strength and the mental state examination. Those tests do not meet our values of fairness, dignity and respect, and we know from feedback from individuals who have been through the process that they cause widespread stress and anxiety. We do not want that in our new system.

I have mentioned the reliability criteria, which require a person to be able to carry out activities “safely”, “repeatedly”, “to an acceptable standard” and “within a reasonable time”. Those criteria are defined more fully in our legislation to help us make sure that, when an individual is asked whether they can complete an activity such as walking 20m, the full impact of that activity on the individual, including pain and fatigue, is considered.

I appreciate that the considerations for fluctuating conditions have been raised in the evidence that the committee has heard. The improvements that we are making to the delivery of ADP, such as providing additional application channels and replacing assessments with person-centred consultations, are intended to address many of the concerns that people have about the eligibility criteria, how they are applied and their impact on people with fluctuating conditions such as multiple sclerosis and epilepsy.

We have proposed a new way of making entitlement decisions for the adult disability payment to ensure that the criteria are fairly applied to all people. That includes stringently applying the reliability criteria—and I have just pointed out what that involves. The criteria are fully enshrined in the regulations and embedded in every step of the decision-making process, which means that decisions will take full account of fluctuating conditions.

As I have set out, the application process will be inclusive, accessible and provided in a range of formats and routes—online, phone, postal and in person—and it will be transparent throughout to help the individual on their journey. There will be comprehensive guidance for clients on how the eligibility criteria are applied so that they understand that process as well. We will ensure that a client is supported to provide relevant information, guided by the reliability criteria, about how they feel after completing an activity and how long the impacts last. Throughout the process, we will have the advocacy service as well.

I will bring in Janet Richardson to give the agency’s perspective on support for clients with mental health problems. I would be grateful if she could elaborate on some of what I have said for the benefit of Pam Duncan-Glancy and the rest of the committee.

That is an important point to raise. I know from the committee’s evidence on 16 December 2021 and from correspondence that I sent to the committee that you will be aware that SCOSS supports the position that we have taken.

After significant engagement with the Scottish Government and thorough consideration of the issues—we were very grateful for the important engagement that we had with the body—SCOSS endorsed our overriding commitment to safe and secure transfer by stating that:

“We are persuaded that changing eligibility criteria at this time would risk undermining the delivery of ADP, with extremely detrimental consequences for people who depend on it.”

We are also mindful that DACBEAG has stated that:

“In the short term, we agree that no significant changes should be made to eligibility rules to ensure a safe and secure transition”.

We have engaged with those that you would expect us to on that important issue, and we are reassured, comforted and grateful that they share our position.

Collectively, in time—not just in the short term through the delivery of ADP and all the significant improvements that I laid out earlier, but in the years thereafter once case transfer has been undertaken—we all want to improve the situation for disabled people as much as we can. I think it important that we undertake the process of case transfer and launch in the way that is envisaged in the regulations, to make sure that we deliver the adult disability payment better than the way in which PIP is delivered, in terms of experience and approach, and I have laid that out through the important changes that we are making. Then, after safe and secure transfer, we can consider where we go next with the benefit.

The changes that we are making, particularly on applying the reliability criteria properly, will make a significant difference for people, and the experience of the adult disability payment will be much improved, just like is the case on the child disability payment. The feedback to the Scottish Government and Social Security Scotland of people’s experience of that different system and approach to that which they had experienced previously from DWP has been very positive.

I will try to be as succinct as possible.

We discussed those issues when I brought previous regulations to the committee on 28 October. Although CDP and ADP are both types of assistance, they are different types of assistance, because the eligibility criteria are different and reflect the difference in the daily needs of and support for adults and children. The needs of disabled children can change as they age and grow. Up to the age of 16, one of the deciding factors is what a child’s needs are compared with a child of the same age who is not disabled. The criteria for adult disability payment are more complex and assess the individual’s ability to carry out a defined set of necessary daily living and mobility activities safely, to an acceptable standard, repeatedly and within a reasonable time period.

If we were to treat the process as a transfer from one form of disability assistance to another, the information held by Social Security Scotland about a CDP award would likely not be sufficient to make a decision on entitlement to adult disability payment for many clients. The person would therefore need to provide further supporting information and potentially would be required to make an application for adult disability payment. It is therefore in the best interests of young people on child disability payment to make an application for adult disability payment.

Extensive support and advice will be available to young people and their families undergoing the process, through a choice of channels. We are committed to making the process as smooth as possible, with no gap in payment, to ensure that it will be less disruptive than the current system. SCOSS has welcomed the changes and has commented that they are likely to strengthen the rights of clients who undergo the process.

We are engaged with the relevant stakeholders on that matter; on-going consideration is being given to it. Guidance will be made public, and the advocacy service that we are providing will be there to support people. That support will include ensuring that people are aware of how long they have to respond and that they are encouraged to contact Social Security Scotland if they are having any difficulties in responding.

There has been significant consideration of that issue as the regulations have been developed and in response to the Scottish Commission on Social Security’s recommendations. The member will be aware that, in our response to SCOSS, we extended the position and committed to providing a minimum of 28 days for people to respond to requests for information. I stress that that is a minimum. As I said in my opening statement, we will encourage individuals to ask for more time if that is required. Social Security Scotland will have regard to the individual’s circumstances, so it will extend that period when it is reasonable to do so.

We will also withdraw requests for information if they no longer appear to be reasonable. For example, an individual might have told Social Security Scotland that they do not have the requested information. We will explain clearly to individuals what information is being requested and why. As I said, individuals will be encouraged to contact Social Security Scotland if they think they will have trouble in providing the requested information within the requested time and, importantly, if it is likely that a suspension would cause hardship.